When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

India

A Flag And Signs Of Separatism In India

Blur of a Karnataka flag.
Blur of a Karnataka flag.
T.M. Veeraraghav

NEW DELHI — In the uproar over the southwestern state ofKarnataka"s decision to have a separate flag for the state, New Delhi-based television channels warned that the move was a threat to national unity in India. Meanwhile, Bengaluru-based Kannada-language channels largely hailed the move, as simply a worthy symbol of Kannada pride.

This latest example of the cocoons that hinder both journalism and India as a whole, depending on where people are looking from. This is not about patriotism or about being Indian, but about a disconnect in understanding India between the capital of New Delhi and a southern city, Bengaluru, which is currently ruled by the Congress party that was unseated from national power by current Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Let's set aside the fact that the flag began purely an electoral gimmick. The reactions and emotions the decision evoked is substance for a deeper analysis.

It's not clear at what time in our independent history reiterating a linguistic identity became inconsistent with the identity of being Indian. Linguistic division of states was implemented in 1956 purely to recognize fiercely-independent linguistic identities, especially in south India.

Until the early 1960s, states like Tamil Nadu had openly raised secessionist demands, but those years gave way to a new and powerful India where a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could assert to be Tamilian and Indian.

Through the seven decades as a nation, the idea of India as a conglomeration of diverse cultural identities had matured to mean that both a regional or linguistic identity can co-exist with a national identity. States have their official song, bird and emblem — and one state deciding to have a flag is no different.

Photo: Hari Prasad Nadig/Flickr

A Congress-ruled state government deciding to have a flag for Karnataka is a reassertion of a linguistic or state identity. It's a challenge not to the idea of India, but a mere political counter to the forceful use of Hindu nationalism by Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). "If you portray yourselves as champions of India, we will portray ourselves as champions of Kannada..." is all that it means.

The reason it's a strong counter is that Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) as an idea aims to create a homogeneous national identity, thus electorally uniting the various sections of Hindu society and achieving power in the process.

The moment linguistic, regional or caste identities are evoked, there is a division in the electorate and hence a threat to the BJP's ability to capture power. The debate has to center around ‘Hindu versus non-Hindu" for it to achieve electoral consolidation. This is why the BJP has accused the Congress of "divisive" politics when caste or linguistic issues are brought up.

Even though Karnataka has been ruled by national parties, the love for Kannada and rejection of Hindi are strong sentiments here.

But in this fierce portrayal of the Hindu nationalist narrative, revolving around one leader as the champion of the nation, the plurality and space for the expression of other identities is lost. Further, the language of Hindu nationalism is largely Hindi, the language the prime minister delivers his speeches in, and the crux of the perceived threat to south Indian languages is the imposition of Hindi.

This is perhaps the reason the BJP, or Modi's brand of politics, has not been able to make decisive inroads into large parts of south India, like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, where linguistic identities demand that the idea of India be seen as one of co-existence. Much of the Hindutva onslaught is lost in translation. It might have found resonance in small urban sections and among upper castes, but has not been able to impress the electorate by and large.

Coalition-era politics, over the last two decades, has further strengthened these linguistic identities. Even though Karnataka has been ruled by national parties, the love for Kannada and rejection of Hindi are strong sentiments here.

While the state flag decision has been questioned by BJP's national leaders, there is a studied silence from their counterparts at the state level. The problem for the BJP seems to be that with its nationalist onslaught, it's not able to balance or defend its regional identity.

Linguistic chauvinism is not a new trait in India, it has only found a new position as the Congress's counter to BJP's Hindu nationalism in Karnataka.

So while people may question it as another jingoistic political exercise to woo the electorate, or even challenge it as not being secular, to see the Karnataka flag as a threat to India would mean seeing the idea of India through a BJP prism. The constitutional idea of India has matured, and is firm and strong in the state of Karnataka, no matter which party wins or how many flags fly.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Smaller Allies Matter: Afghanistan Offers Hard Lessons For Ukraine's Future

Despite controversies at home, Nordic countries were heavily involved in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan. As the Ukraine war grinds on, lessons from that conflict are more relevant than ever.

Photo of Finnish Defence Forces in Afghanistan

Finnish Defence Forces in Afghanistan

Johannes Jauhiainen

-Analysis-

HELSINKI — In May 2021, the Taliban took back power in Afghanistan after 20 years of international presence, astronomical sums of development aid and casualties on all warring sides.

As Kabul fell, a chaotic evacuation prompted comparisons to the fall of Saigon — and most of the attention was on the U.S., which had led the original war to unseat the Taliban after 9/11 and remained by far the largest foreign force on the ground. Yet, the fall of Kabul was also a tumultuous and troubling experience for a number of other smaller foreign countries who had been presented for years in Afghanistan.

In an interview at the time, Antti Kaikkonen, the Finnish Minister of Defense, tried to explain what went wrong during the evacuation.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

“Originally we anticipated that the smaller countries would withdraw before the Americans. Then it became clear that getting people to the airport had become more difficult," Kaikkonen said. "So we decided last night to bring home our last soldiers who were helping with the evacuation.”

During the 20-year-long Afghan war, the foreign troop presence included many countries:Finland committed around 2,500 soldiers,Sweden 8,000,Denmark 12,000 and Norway 9,000. And in the nearly two years since the end of the war, Finland,Belgium and theNetherlands have commissioned investigations into their engagements in Afghanistan.

As the number of fragile or failed states around the world increases, it’s important to understand how to best organize international development aid and the security of such countries. Twenty years of international engagement in Afghanistan offers valuable lessons.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest